If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

How did we get such aright-wing statist in office? What happened to his pledges of openness?

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

How did we get such aright-wing statist in office? What happened to his pledges of openness?

Do you have a link to support anything in this post? Some facts or additional information other than a headline would be useful. In addition, I applaud the President for cracking down on leaks. Classified information is classified and should not be leaked to the media or those not cleared for it. If you allow that to occur, then it just gets worse and worse. I'm sure the idea of that makes you cream your pants hard, but there are things the world shouldn't know in order to protect our country. Every country has classified information.

But I would definitely like to see the supporting evidence for your claims.

Half of those aren't even Obama's doing. The other half needed prosecution. I would argue that since more leaks have occurred under Obama than other administrations, then it would logically follow that more prosecutions of such would. Besides, have you looked at some of the things these people leaked?

Leibowitz, a linguist and translator for the FBI, pleaded guilty to leaking classified information to a blogger. He was sentenced to 20 months in prison. At the time of his sentencing, not even the judge knew exactly what he had leaked, though later disclosures indicated it was FBI wiretaps of conversations between Israeli diplomats about Iran.

Kim, an analyst working under contract with the State Department, was indicted for giving classified information to Fox News about North Korea. His case is still pending. In a July 2013 ruling in the case, a federal judge said the government did not need to show that the information leaked could have damaged national security – just that Kim knew it could and willfully leaked the information.

Sterling, a CIA officer, was charged with leaking information about the CIA’s efforts against Iran’s nuclear program. His case is still pending.

And we all know what Manning and Snowden did. These are people who broke the law. They should be charged and prosecuted. Unless you feel like lawbreakers should be able to do so without having to worry about prosecution.

Originally Posted by T-Rexx

Obama has been a big fan of secrecy and illegal spying on Americans.

It is in sharp contrast to what he advocated before he became president.

How do you know that didn't happen? Just because you feel something might be unconstitutional doesn't mean it actually is. As the President stated the other day in his speech, there were things he though as a Senator that he changed his view on once he got into the White House and saw the totality of the facts. He promised reviews, not any particular action. And I believe we have well established no one has any evidence of Americans' e-mails being read or their phones being tapped.

Re: Is Obama the anti-openness president?

And I believe we have well established no one has any evidence of Americans' e-mails being read or their phones being tapped.

Indeed. Secure email services are closing just because they don't like being in business, Microsoft gave the NSA back door access to Skype because everyone knows they will never try to use it. And Google, Apple, yahoo, MS, et. al. only gave access to their servers so the NSA could have a really huge cloud drive.

Re: Is Obama the anti-openness president?

Originally Posted by T-Rexx

Probably it did.

Obama and his AGs just happen to agree with GWB.

Or they just happen to have found that it didn't violate the law. In that quote, he promised to have the programs reviewed and overturn those that were found to be un-Constitutional or encroaching on civil liberties unnecessarily. He did not promise to automatically shut down programs which have contributed to stopping terrorist attacks.

Re: Is Obama the anti-openness president?

The Obama Administration just doesn't 'crack down on leaks', they have created an environment where less information is given to Congress and the American people. Administration officials lie or take 'the fifth' or just don't respond to Congress on requests for information. The key word is 'stall'.

We have a check and balances systems where Congress has the right to oversee what the Executive branch does ... right now that system is broke. One side will simply not cooperate.

It will be interesting in 2015 when Obama is no longer in charge to see the number of books that come out talking about the arrogant, 'only I know best' leadership that Obama employed while in office. I doubt that Obama's people will have the loyalty and admiration that those within the Clinton and Bush White House staff had.

Re: Is Obama the anti-openness president?

Originally Posted by Jack Springer

The Obama Administration just doesn't 'crack down on leaks', they have created an environment where less information is given to Congress and the American people. Administration officials lie or take 'the fifth' or just don't respond to Congress on requests for information. The key word is 'stall'.

We have a check and balances systems where Congress has the right to oversee what the Executive branch does ... right now that system is broke. One side will simply not cooperate.

It will be interesting in 2015 when Obama is no longer in charge to see the number of books that come out talking about the arrogant, 'only I know best' leadership that Obama employed while in office. I doubt that Obama's people will have the loyalty and admiration that those within the Clinton and Bush White House staff had.

The President has given more than enough information to Congress. The problem is that certain people in Congress like to engage in witch hunts against the administration and continue to keep demanding more and more until they hit something that can't be handed over (there is a court upheld precedent throughout US history of administrations keeping certain information from Congress to maintain the separation of powers) and then they scream about lack of cooperation. It's been an attempt since January of 2009 to undermine a president certain members of Congress didn't want to be elected.

Re: Is Obama the anti-openness president?

Originally Posted by tigerfan482

Or they just happen to have found that it didn't violate the law. In that quote, he promised to have the programs reviewed and overturn those that were found to be un-Constitutional or encroaching on civil liberties unnecessarily. He did not promise to automatically shut down programs which have contributed to stopping terrorist attacks.

He promised to overturn them if he found any programs that were "encroaching on civil liberties."

Obviously, spying on Americans without a court order and even without suspicion of wrongdoing is not "encroaching on our civil liberties." The president is just trying to protect us. We should really be grateful.

Re: Is Obama the anti-openness president?

Originally Posted by T-Rexx

He promised to overturn them if he found any programs that were "encroaching on civil liberties."

Obviously, spying on Americans without a court order and even without suspicion of wrongdoing is not "encroaching on our civil liberties." The president is just trying to protect us. We should really be grateful.

Don't you agree, Mr. President?

First off, please use the entire quote (I'm feeling like we're re-hashing the Benjamin Franklin quote on liberty again.) "...if they're encroaching on civil liberties unnecessarily..." So there's one of two ways this went - either they found it wasn't encoraching on civil liberties (the Supreme Court has ruled metadata has NO reasonable expectation of privacy and thus is not covered under the Fourth Amendment) or they found that the didn't encroach unnecessarily. Secondly, you're making an argument based on the government spying on Americans which you have yet to provide any proof of. Thirdly, this collection of metadata is done with a court order (hint: it's the thing that was leaked by Snowden to the press.) So none of what you said is rooted in any fact.

Re: Is Obama the anti-openness president?

Yes, secret courts with secret interpretations of the law withheld even from the Congress that passed the law certainly helps our civil liberties. It's an excellent way to have an informed public for a strong democracy!

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Re: Is Obama the anti-openness president?

Originally Posted by Kulindahr

Yes, secret courts with secret interpretations of the law withheld even from the Congress that passed the law certainly helps our civil liberties. It's an excellent way to have an informed public for a strong democracy!

The committees in Congress that are responsible for oversight of the intelligence community were made WELL aware of these court rulings and court proceedings. Committees have been established and charged with oversight of their various areas for decades. The make-up of Congress and the rules, regulations, and laws it passes dealing with its own operations are not within the purview of the NSA or the Executive Branch.

Re: Is Obama the anti-openness president?

The REASON he is rampantly prosecuting leakers is because LEFTIES were demanding it after Valerie Plame during the Bush years, including MOST of the left side of JUB. Be careful what you ask for because you just might get it.

Everyone can be great, because everyone can serve.~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

Re: Is Obama the anti-openness president?

It surely is necessary to read all of our emails and BB postings, our online (and offline) documents, and to listen in on our phone conversations in order to keep us safe.

Ahhh, more unfounded and unproven conspiracy theories. Some people have gotten really good at these. You should work on writing novels. Or would you care to provide some evidence of these claims?

Originally Posted by T-Rexx

No doubt, the protection against unreasonable search and seizure is one of the liberties Ben Franklin did not feel was necessary to a free people.

Oh no, he felt it was necessary. However, the Supreme Court has rules that metadata is not protected under the Fourth Amendment and thus collection of it is not an "unreasonable search and seizure." Plus I brought up Mr. Franklin because people love to leave out the words "temporary" and "essential" from his quote, thinking that he didn't really mean for those to be in there.

Re: Is Obama the anti-openness president?

For those of you who think President Obama is bad.... remember who preceded him and what it could have been like if McCain/Palin or Romney/Ryan won.

We don't have it so bad.

I think this is the important thing to remember. When the dust settles and people come down from their panic, they'll see that their rights are actually protected and much more so than they were under Bush and would have been under McCain/Palin or Romney/Ryan. Keep in mind it was Bush who authorized the warrantless wiretaps, not Obama.

Re: Is Obama the anti-openness president?

Ahhh, more unfounded and unproven conspiracy theories. Some people have gotten really good at these. You should work on writing novels. Or would you care to provide some evidence of these claims?

You're right.

Just because some G-men were caught outside your window with their hands cupped around their eyes, pressed to the glass, does not mean they were actually trying to see inside.

That would be a crazy conclusion. And where is the proof? The president says they were just making sure the glass was safe for you. Why would anyone question that?

Originally Posted by tigerfan482

Oh no, he felt it was necessary. However, the Supreme Court has rules that metadata is not protected under the Fourth Amendment and thus collection of it is not an "unreasonable search and seizure." Plus I brought up Mr. Franklin because people love to leave out the words "temporary" and "essential" from his quote, thinking that he didn't really mean for those to be in there.

You still haven't told us which of our liberties are the nonessential/unnecessary ones.

Your point that Ben Franklin believed we are just too free and can toss out some of our liberty because it is "nonessential" is just bizarre. You copied that idea from an internet posting of a right-wing fanatic/idiot. You should be informed that there are a lot of stupid people out there, posting stupid stuff on the internet. Not everything you read necessarily makes sense.

Franklin used the term essential liberties to emphasize the fact that liberties are essential and therefore need to be protected at all cost - not to imply the existence of some bizarre, lesser freedoms that we don't really need.

Re: Is Obama the anti-openness president?

For those of you who think President Obama is bad.... remember who preceded him and what it could have been like if McCain/Palin or Romney/Ryan won.

We don't have it so bad.

This is true, however, this is legitimate criticism to lay on the President. How are we to hold the Democrat party and Obama accountable, if we merely shrug our shoulders and concede, "Well, it would have been worse with the other guy?"

We should press this issue against Obama as much as we have with Republican leaders in the past. The NSA's spying on Americans is unacceptable.

Re: Is Obama the anti-openness president?

Originally Posted by tigerfan482

I think this is the important thing to remember. When the dust settles and people come down from their panic, they'll see that their rights are actually protected and much more so than they were under Bush and would have been under McCain/Palin or Romney/Ryan. Keep in mind it was Bush who authorized the warrantless wiretaps, not Obama.

Re: Is Obama the anti-openness president?

Just because some G-men were caught outside your window with their hands cupped around their eyes, pressed to the glass, does not mean they were actually trying to see inside.

That would be a crazy conclusion. And where is the proof? The president says they were just making sure the glass was safe for you. Why would anyone question that?

Except in this case all you have shown is that a window exists and that there are G-men somewhere who have the ability to see. What you've failed to do is show that those two things are related in any way. This is not a case of the G-men being caught at your window. This is a case of the G-men looking through the window of someone on the other side of the world and you saying "Gee, I have a window and they have the ability to look through windows thus they must be looking through mine."

Originally Posted by T-Rexx

You still haven't told us which of our liberties are the nonessential/unnecessary ones.

Your point that Ben Franklin believed we are just too free and can toss out some of our liberty because it is "nonessential" is just bizarre. You copied that idea from an internet posting of a right-wing fanatic/idiot. You should be informed that there are a lot of stupid people out there, posting stupid stuff on the internet. Not everything you read necessarily makes sense.

Franklin used the term essential liberties to emphasize the fact that liberties are essential and therefore need to be protected at all cost - not to imply the existence of some bizarre, lesser freedoms that we don't really need.

Making phone calls through third party systems with the expectation that only you and the person you're calling will ever know you made that call is a non-essential liberty. Being able to fly without being screened or searched is a non-essential liberty. Being able to drive wherever you want without being pulled over for a sobriety checkpoint is a non-essential liberty. The list goes on. Franklin understood there were times when what some people considered liberty would have to be given up in the interest of a more permanent security. I highly doubt he was dumb enough to believe that things would always remain the same in the US and that nothing that anyone would consider a liberty would ever have to be sacrificed for the lasting security of the nation. I mean we'll forget the fact that the suspension of habeas corpus or the activation of the militia during times of insurrection were written into the Constitution, a document that Franklin himself was a member of the drafting convention. But you're right, he probably forgot that he really meant that no liberty, no matter how small and insignificant, can ever be given up for security, no matter how long-lasting and necessary.

Originally Posted by Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Re: Is Obama the anti-openness president?

I keep waiting for Obama to tell me that Bills of Attainder are necessary. But then the ruinous prosecution of whistleblowers and journalists is perhaps the same thing.

The DoJ - incapable of recognizing a 4th or 5th Amendment issue - will have no problem redefining that historic punishment.

I love the streams of unsubstantiated ideas that flow in these threads. You guys really should get together and write a movie or a book. The amount of fiction you guys generate could rival Tom Clancy. But in reality, there are whistleblowers and then there are people like Snowden. Federal law is clear on what defines a whistleblower and what defines someone who broke the law. Had Snowden gone directly to Congress to get this debate started, he would be protected as a whistleblower. Since he went to the media with classified information, he will be hunted as a criminal.

Re: Is Obama the anti-openness president?

For those of you who think President Obama is bad.... remember who preceded him and what it could have been like if McCain/Palin or Romney/Ryan won.

We don't have it so bad.

Good point. I knew Mr Obama was a conservative before he even announced his candidacy so unlike a lot of people on either side he is exactly what I expected...with a few very pleasant surprises. He throws liberals a bone when he has to...bones are good.

In modern times, this famous quote from Ben Franklin is used to strike a healthy balance between individual liberty and government-provided security from external threats. But as we’ve learned more and more recently, context matters. Looking at Franklin’s words in the historical context of their time, does this quote really mean what we think it does?

The words appear originally in a 1755 letter that Franklin is presumed to have written on behalf of the Pennsylvania Assembly to the colonial governor during the French and Indian War. The letter was a salvo in a power struggle between the governor and the Assembly over funding for security on the frontier, one in which the Assembly wished to tax the lands of the Penn family, which ruled Pennsylvania from afar, to raise money for defense against French and Indian attacks. The governor kept vetoing the Assembly’s efforts at the behest of the family, which had appointed him. So to start matters, Franklin was writing not as a subject being asked to cede his liberty to government, but in his capacity as a legislator being asked to renounce his power to tax lands notionally under his jurisdiction. In other words, the “essential liberty” to which Franklin referred was thus not what we would think of today as civil liberties but, rather, the right of self-governance of a legislature in the interests of collective security.

What’s more the “purchase [of] a little temporary safety” of which Franklin complains was not the ceding of power to a government Leviathan in exchange for some promise of protection from external threat; for in Franklin’s letter, the word “purchase” does not appear to have been a metaphor. The governor was accusing the Assembly of stalling on appropriating money for frontier defense by insisting on including the Penn lands in its taxes–and thus triggering his intervention. And the Penn family later offered cash to fund defense of the frontier–as long as the Assembly would acknowledge that it lacked the power to tax the family’s lands. Franklin was thus complaining of the choice facing the legislature between being able to make funds available for frontier defense and maintaining its right of self-governance–and he was criticizing the governor for suggesting it should be willing to give up the latter to ensure the former.

In short, Franklin was not describing some tension between government power and individual liberty. He was describing, rather, effective self-government in the service of security as the very liberty it would be contemptible to trade. Notwithstanding the way the quotation has come down to us, Franklin saw the liberty and security interests of Pennsylvanians as aligned.

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Re: Is Obama the anti-openness president?

Originally Posted by tigerfan482

Except in this case all you have shown is that a window exists and that there are G-men somewhere who have the ability to see. What you've failed to do is show that those two things are related in any way. This is not a case of the G-men being caught at your window. This is a case of the G-men looking through the window of someone on the other side of the world and you saying "Gee, I have a window and they have the ability to look through windows thus they must be looking through mine."

Making phone calls through third party systems with the expectation that only you and the person you're calling will ever know you made that call is a non-essential liberty. Being able to fly without being screened or searched is a non-essential liberty. Being able to drive wherever you want without being pulled over for a sobriety checkpoint is a non-essential liberty. The list goes on. Franklin understood there were times when what some people considered liberty would have to be given up in the interest of a more permanent security. I highly doubt he was dumb enough to believe that things would always remain the same in the US and that nothing that anyone would consider a liberty would ever have to be sacrificed for the lasting security of the nation. I mean we'll forget the fact that the suspension of habeas corpus or the activation of the militia during times of insurrection were written into the Constitution, a document that Franklin himself was a member of the drafting convention. But you're right, he probably forgot that he really meant that no liberty, no matter how small and insignificant, can ever be given up for security, no matter how long-lasting and necessary.

Well, actually the ability to drive from here to there is not a liberty, it is a privilege, so being stopped at a sobriety check point is not a violation of your liberties. With the privilege of driving comes the responsibility to not drive impaired. Likewise, air travel is not a liberty. People from every country can get on an airplane and fly to a destination, whether or not their government's constitution provides for individual liberties. Getting on an airplane is a privilege for those that can afford to buy the ticket. One cannot go to the airport and demand a seat on an airplane because they have the right to fly to Palm Springs. So that security check point you have to go through is a requirement that you have to pass to ensure the safety of your fellow passengers. So that their right to arrive at their destination alive is protected. When telephones were invented, you picked up the phone, put one part to your ear, and another part you held I front of your mouth. When the operator came on the line, you told her who you wanted to call. She then connected you to the person you wanted to talk to and their phone rang. You then started your conversation with the person you intended to talk to and you hoped that the operator had actually hung up. I really do not see where switching from a live in person operator to having your calls switched by a computer gave you a right to privacy. From the very beginning, through the age of party lines, to the current century, I fail to understand how anyone who is old enough to remember party lines or a live operator when you dialed zero (0) would ever think that a telephone conversation is privileged. Unless you are on the phone with your attorney, most jurisdictions do not hold that privilege carries over to phone conversations. A large part of the problem is that people have come to expect that certain privileges are in fact rights. We do not have a right to air travel, we do not have a right to drive, And making a telephone call, has never been a right, it is a privilege afforded to us by the phone company. A privilege that can be restricted or denied simply by not paying your phone bill.

If you do not want your phone company to allow the government to listen to your conversations, that you are making on their equipment, have those conversations in person. The cables, the switching equipment, and until recently, even your telephone were property of the phone company. Today, you own your computer. The minute that cable goes through your wall and connects to the phone company, cable company, or whoever your internet service provider is, your transmission is on their equipment. You are allowing a third party to handle your email or whatever. You are contracting with whoever provides your internet access to handle the information you are putting out there. Do you trust a secret to an outside source, and then expect them to hold the confidence that you promised the person that told you?

Re: Is Obama the anti-openness president?

Originally Posted by Jack Springer

^^

The question of the thread 'is he the anti-openness President'. The simple and correct answer is yes.

The question isn't .. .do you love the President.

The simple and correct answer is it depends on who you ask. If I were to ask someone who hates the President and looks for wrong in absolutely everything he does, then the answer would be yes. If I asked someone who supports the President and what he is trying to do, then the answer is no. However, I think in all of the posts on here, you've provided the least support (read: none) for your position.

Originally Posted by cm98059

Well, actually the ability to drive from here to there is not a liberty, it is a privilege, so being stopped at a sobriety check point is not a violation of your liberties. With the privilege of driving comes the responsibility to not drive impaired. Likewise, air travel is not a liberty. People from every country can get on an airplane and fly to a destination, whether or not their government's constitution provides for individual liberties. Getting on an airplane is a privilege for those that can afford to buy the ticket. One cannot go to the airport and demand a seat on an airplane because they have the right to fly to Palm Springs. So that security check point you have to go through is a requirement that you have to pass to ensure the safety of your fellow passengers. So that their right to arrive at their destination alive is protected. When telephones were invented, you picked up the phone, put one part to your ear, and another part you held I front of your mouth. When the operator came on the line, you told her who you wanted to call. She then connected you to the person you wanted to talk to and their phone rang. You then started your conversation with the person you intended to talk to and you hoped that the operator had actually hung up. I really do not see where switching from a live in person operator to having your calls switched by a computer gave you a right to privacy. From the very beginning, through the age of party lines, to the current century, I fail to understand how anyone who is old enough to remember party lines or a live operator when you dialed zero (0) would ever think that a telephone conversation is privileged. Unless you are on the phone with your attorney, most jurisdictions do not hold that privilege carries over to phone conversations. A large part of the problem is that people have come to expect that certain privileges are in fact rights. We do not have a right to air travel, we do not have a right to drive, And making a telephone call, has never been a right, it is a privilege afforded to us by the phone company. A privilege that can be restricted or denied simply by not paying your phone bill.

If you do not want your phone company to allow the government to listen to your conversations, that you are making on their equipment, have those conversations in person. The cables, the switching equipment, and until recently, even your telephone were property of the phone company. Today, you own your computer. The minute that cable goes through your wall and connects to the phone company, cable company, or whoever your internet service provider is, your transmission is on their equipment. You are allowing a third party to handle your email or whatever. You are contracting with whoever provides your internet access to handle the information you are putting out there. Do you trust a secret to an outside source, and then expect them to hold the confidence that you promised the person that told you?

You illustrate a good point. What is defined as liberty? There are some who would consider precious little outside of the rights specifically mentioned in the Constitution liberties and others who would consider everything that is done day-to-day as liberties. This accounts almost totally for the difference in positions on the matter. But the idea that people think their metadata (we'll avoid content of calls since there is no evidence showing that occurs) should be private when being willingly passed to third parties is laughable. The companies could easily voluntarily hand that data over to the government (or anyone for that matter). That is their data to handle, not the end user's.

Re: Is Obama the anti-openness president?

So because our government entrusts classified communications to the telcos, our government should have no expectation that the information disclosed over those same phone lines will remain private and classified?

Re: Is Obama the anti-openness president?

Originally Posted by justright25

So because our government entrusts classified communications to the telcos, our government should have no expectation that the information disclosed over those same phone lines will remain private and classified?

Actually, most of their classified communications goes over government-run, encrypted networks. Any small portion that goes over commercial telcos is heavily encrypted (see STE and SCIP).

Re: Is Obama the anti-openness president?

Originally Posted by justright25

So because our government entrusts classified communications to the telcos, our government should have no expectation that the information disclosed over those same phone lines will remain private and classified?

Exactly. I do no know where this expectation of privacy came from when people are utilizing a third parties network. And like Tigerfan said above, the government pretty much has their own system an encrypts everything else.

Re: Is Obama the anti-openness president?

Originally Posted by tigerfan482

The simple and correct answer is it depends on who you ask. If I were to ask someone who hates the President and looks for wrong in absolutely everything he does, then the answer would be yes. If I asked someone who supports the President and what he is trying to do, then the answer is no.

And if you asked someone who doesn't care, but is just looking at the record?

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Re: Is Obama the anti-openness president?

Originally Posted by Kulindahr

And if you asked someone who doesn't care, but is just looking at the record?

Then the answer would be depends on what you're comparing it to. If you're judging him on how much information he's given to the public on classified programs, then I think he ranks right there with all of the other Presidents in the "doesn't give out classified information" category. If you take the totality of what his administration has done, then I think again he's right there with most other Presidents. He;s definitely been more proactive about making websites to post information to (such as the website that tracked government spending of the economic stimulus money).

But you obviously feel differently. So what Presidents should Obama model himself after in terms of transparency? Who is at the top of your list of most open Presidents?

Re: Is Obama the anti-openness president?

URL to the full paper that the above quote is from. It's a very interesting read and a good viewpoint of the whole debate.

I have thought this before, but not quite so clearly:

I hope to convince the reader that any crude notion of a “balancing” between security and liberty badly misstates the relationship between these two goods — that in the vast majority of circumstances, liberty and security are better understood as necessary preconditions for one another than in some sort of standoff. The absence of liberty will tend to guarantee an absence of security, and conversely, one cannot talk meaningfully about an individual’s having liberty in the absence of certain basic conditions of security. While either in excess can threaten the other, neither can meaningfully exist without the other either.

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Re: Is Obama the anti-openness president?

Originally Posted by tigerfan482

Then the answer would be depends on what you're comparing it to. If you're judging him on how much information he's given to the public on classified programs, then I think he ranks right there with all of the other Presidents in the "doesn't give out classified information" category. If you take the totality of what his administration has done, then I think again he's right there with most other Presidents. He;s definitely been more proactive about making websites to post information to (such as the website that tracked government spending of the economic stimulus money).

But you obviously feel differently. So what Presidents should Obama model himself after in terms of transparency? Who is at the top of your list of most open Presidents?

I don't have such a list. My comparison is between what he said about openness and what we've seen.

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Re: Is Obama the anti-openness president?

Originally Posted by Kulindahr

I don't have such a list. My comparison is between what he said about openness and what we've seen.

I don't recall him ever saying he would release details on classified programs. And since we've now acknowledged he is no different than any other President in those regards, I do not believe he is the anti-openness President.

Re: Is Obama the anti-openness president?

We don't know what Obama did in regards to issues after he was in office. He could very well have had his attorney general look at all of Bush's executive orders. It appears that most of Bush's executive orders were regarding chain of succession in DOT and other federal administrations. Several of Bush's executive orders were less than one page long. It probably did not take long to go through all 291 of them. Very few seem to be geared towards National Security, or Terrorism. So there probably wasn't too much to find that could infringe on constitutional freedoms, real or imagined.

Re: Is Obama the anti-openness president?

He won't answer questions or provide information on the following.

- Fast and Furious
- Benghazi
- IRS targeting Obama enemies
- ObamaCare -- how can the President change the law when it was passed by Congress.
- Justice Department targeting the AP
- Justice Department targeting James Rosen, wiretapping his parents
- Holder committing perjury in testimony before Congress regarding Rosen
- Sebelius violating the Hatch Act
- The use of private emails and fake names to conduct official government business, therefore making it difficult if not impossible for Congress to perform their duties in checks and balances of the executive branch
- New Black Panthers -- the federal government now officially looks the other way when disruptive blacks cause voters uneasiness at the polls
- I want to know who hacked into Sharyl Attkisson's computer. Did the Justice Department do it?
- Instead of capturing and getting information from terrorists -- why does Obama just kill them and anyone else that is around them?
- Why does the Obama Administration crack down on whistleblowers so much ... more than any other US President?

Re: Is Obama the anti-openness president?

Originally Posted by Rolyo85

Benghazi!!!

Hey Jack, this just in - Obama already won reelection. Nobody cares about BENGHAZI anymore!

Looks like someone is listening to right wing radio ands watching a little too much Fox. Conspiracy theories and scandals are bouncing off the walls. And after President Obama completes his successful second term the right wingers will forget about everything and attack President Hillary Clinton.

Will we hear about Whitewater again? Maybe they'll start peddling the Clinton Chronicles DVD again for a few fast bucks.

Re: Is Obama the anti-openness president?

Originally Posted by Jack Springer

He won't answer questions or provide information on the following.

- Fast and Furious
- Benghazi
- IRS targeting Obama enemies
- ObamaCare -- how can the President change the law when it was passed by Congress.
- Justice Department targeting the AP
- Justice Department targeting James Rosen, wiretapping his parents
- Holder committing perjury in testimony before Congress regarding Rosen
- Sebelius violating the Hatch Act
- The use of private emails and fake names to conduct official government business, therefore making it difficult if not impossible for Congress to perform their duties in checks and balances of the executive branch
- New Black Panthers -- the federal government now officially looks the other way when disruptive blacks cause voters uneasiness at the polls
- I want to know who hacked into Sharyl Attkisson's computer. Did the Justice Department do it?
- Instead of capturing and getting information from terrorists -- why does Obama just kill them and anyone else that is around them?
- Why does the Obama Administration crack down on whistleblowers so much ... more than any other US President?

There are a plethora of facts on all of the above points. You simply have to learn how to use Google. What you appear to instead be complaining about is a lack of facts that support your theories that somehow Obama is some criminal and his administration is out to destroy America. I would complain to if there was nothing factual to support a position I so adamantly and blindly took. But make sure to write your Republican buddies. If they keep laser focused on these issues and keeping issuing subpoenas (sometimes three or four times) for the same information they've already received, they may find something in the tens of thousands of documents and e-mails they've received on the topics to twist and try to pass off as supporting their position. Maybe someday they might find something. But I highly doubt it. I'm guessing after 6 years of being a do nothing House, they'll find themselves with boxes of documents, piles of conspiracy theories and accusations, but nothing of substance (and no meaningful legislation in the process) to show for it.